4 ms·

Yes, that is correct but since the US had until recently the highest corporate tax in the OECD, the US corporation will would almost always pay more taxes on Ge

Yes, that is correct but since the US had until recently the highest corporate tax in the OECD, the US corporation will would almost always pay more taxes on German income than a German corporation would on German it’s German income. Giving the US corporation a systematic disadvantage unless they kept the money out of the US. But all this has now changed.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
> What is little known about this tax bill > But all this has now changed I live in Australia. As a casual outside observer, can you inform me as to whether this tax bill has passed in to legislation, or is likely to?
- trothamel 9y ago
  It's law, as of a few weeks ago. Some provisions will go into effect over the course of this year.
- jldugger 9y ago
  It's law: http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/trumpdonald_signingtax_122217getty.jpg?itok=_4458LR0 http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_ar...
- stevenwoo 9y ago
  It passed, but there are parts of the bill that only last ten years (those applying to personal/small business taxes), and then those tax rules revert to the previous version after ten years unless they are passed again under non-Byrd rules in the Senate. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-14/how-the-byrd-rule-will-shape-u-s-tax-overhaul-quicktake-q-a https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-14/how-the-b...
  - cavisne 9y ago
    Which will of course be extended as no government would survive a personal tax increase
    - SolarNet 9y ago
      Which assumes rational government. Our government is controlled by one party and yet we are heading to a government shutdown over immigration. Rational seems far away.
      - talmand 9y ago
        If the opposing party is threatening shutdown of the government then it would seem that the government is not ruled by that single party.
        pwinnski 9y ago
        That single party has the majority of both houses of Congress and also the White House, and yet cannot manage to get a majority vote in the Senate because of disagreement within their own party. The opposing party is not threatening shutdown. A group within the majority is. Since that group within the majority party won't play ball, the majority of the majority party is hoping to garner some support from the minority party. As it happens, some of the changes they want to make would require 60% of votes rather than just 50%+1, but they haven't yet demonstrated they can get to 50%+1, so that's irrelevant here.
    - pg314 9y ago
      A 'personal tax increase' does not have to be across the board. You could e.g. increase the marginal rate for incomes above $1 million, while keeping other rates the same. That would not be politically difficult. Divide et impera.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago

> What is little known about this tax bill > But all this has now changed I live in Australia. As a casual outside observer, can you inform me as to whether this tax bill has passed in to legislation, or is likely to?

trothamel 9y ago
It's law, as of a few weeks ago. Some provisions will go into effect over the course of this year.
jldugger 9y ago
It's law: http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/trumpdonald_signingtax_122217getty.jpg?itok=_4458LR0 http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_ar...
stevenwoo 9y ago
It passed, but there are parts of the bill that only last ten years (those applying to personal/small business taxes), and then those tax rules revert to the previous version after ten years unless they are passed again under non-Byrd rules in the Senate. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-14/how-the-byrd-rule-will-shape-u-s-tax-overhaul-quicktake-q-a https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-14/how-the-b...
- cavisne 9y ago
  Which will of course be extended as no government would survive a personal tax increase
  - SolarNet 9y ago
    Which assumes rational government. Our government is controlled by one party and yet we are heading to a government shutdown over immigration. Rational seems far away.
    - talmand 9y ago
      If the opposing party is threatening shutdown of the government then it would seem that the government is not ruled by that single party.
      - pwinnski 9y ago
        That single party has the majority of both houses of Congress and also the White House, and yet cannot manage to get a majority vote in the Senate because of disagreement within their own party. The opposing party is not threatening shutdown. A group within the majority is. Since that group within the majority party won't play ball, the majority of the majority party is hoping to garner some support from the minority party. As it happens, some of the changes they want to make would require 60% of votes rather than just 50%+1, but they haven't yet demonstrated they can get to 50%+1, so that's irrelevant here.
  - pg314 9y ago
    A 'personal tax increase' does not have to be across the board. You could e.g. increase the marginal rate for incomes above $1 million, while keeping other rates the same. That would not be politically difficult. Divide et impera.